THE TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT; Clinton Accused of Trying to 'Destroy the Rights of a Fellow American Citizen'

Following are excerpts from the presentation today by Representative George W. Gekas, Republican of Pennsylvania, in the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton, as recorded by the Federal News Service, a private transcription agency:

We cannot discuss even the application of these statutes to the facts unless we repeat the series of events that catapulted us to this moment in history.

And we must begin, as you have heard countless times now on and off this floor, we must begin with, in my judgment, with the Supreme Court of the United States, with all due deference to the Chief Justice, because the Supreme Court at one point in this saga determined in a suit brought by Paula Jones that, indeed, an average day-to-day ordinary citizen of our nation would have the right to have a day in court, as it were, even against the President of the United States.

It is there that all of this began, because that fellow American, Paula Jones, no matter how she may have been described by commentators and pundits and talking heads, etc., did have a bundle of rights at her command, and those rights went even to the core of our system of justice to bring the President into the case as a defendant. That is an awesome -- a grand result of a Supreme Court decision at that juncture.

And this is what is being overlooked, in my judgment, as we pursue why we believe that if perjury indeed was committed -- and the record is replete that in fact it was; if indeed obstruction of justice was finally committed by the President of the United States, as the evidence is abundant to demonstrate, then we must apply the rights of Paula Jones to what has transpired.

We are not saying that the President, even though the weight of the evidence demonstrates it amply, should be convicted of the impeachment which has brought us to this floor, because he committed perjury -- just because he committed perjury or obstructed justice; but because as a result of his actions, both in rendering falsehoods under oath, as the evidence demonstrates amply, or in obstructing justice, that because of his conduct, he attempted to, or succeeded in, or almost succeeded in -- and it doesn't matter which of these results finally emerges -- attempted to destroy the rights of a fellow American citizen.

That is what the gravamen of all that has occurred up to now really is.

In attempting to obstruct justice, we mean by that obstructing the justice of whom? It was an attempt, a bold attempt, one that succeeded in some respects, to obstruct the justice sought by a fellow American citizen.

That is heavy. That is soul-searching in its quality. That goes beyond those who would say, ''He committed perjury about sex; so what?'' That goes beyond saying, ''This is just about sex; so what? Everybody lies about sex.''

But when you combine all the features of the actions of the President of the United States and you see that they are funneled and tunneled and aimed and targeted towards obliterating from the landscape the rights of Paula Jones, a fellow American citizen, then you must take a second look at your own assertion that, ''So what, it's just a question of fact about sex.''

Many of the members of this chamber and the other have already acknowledged that the President has lied under oath. But then they're quick to add that ''So what?'', which is so disturbing in view of the results of what has happened in this case.

When before the House of Representatives -- and it's part of your record. We had a group of academicians, professors testifying, Professor Higginbotham [A. Leon Higginbotham Jr., retired Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia], who since sadly, I must relate, has passed away since his appearance then, was trying to show how futile it was for us to even attempt to append perjury to an indictable, prosecutable offense, that nowhere in the country is it prosecuted regularly, and it's so trivial because it's based on sex.

He went on to give a kind of an example of how trivial it is. Would you expect, he was asking us -- and I'm paraphrasing him, I know. Would you expect to indict the President of the United States for perjury if he lied that in a 55-mile-speed limit even though he was going 56 that he would say, I was only going 51? Would you indict him on that?

Not a Trivial Matter

In the repartee that I had with him at that juncture I asked him would he feel the same if as a result of that perjurious testimony about only going 51 miles an hour that there was a victim in the case, that this might be a tort case, an involuntary manslaughter case, a negligence case in which someone died as a result of an automobile accident case? And the issue at hand would be the speed limit.

Would he feel the same way if as a result of the perjury committed as to the rate of speed, that someone's rights were erased from the case by virtue of that perjury? The gentleman acknowledged that that made a difference. And that's what the difference is here.

The perjury, per se -- if that be a phrase that we -- lawyers can adopt. The perjury per se is almost a given, pursuant to the commentary that we've heard from people in and out of this chamber. But when you add to it the terrible consequence of seeing a fellow citizen pursuing justice thwarted, stopped in her tracks, as it were, by reason of the actions of the President, that is what the core issue here is. . . .

Isn't that what the adverse consequence is of the attempt to obliterate the Paula Jones civil suit? That's what it is. Not, ''He committed perjury, so what?'' It is what the end result of that perjury might be that you should weigh. Skip over the fact that he committed perjury. We all acknowledge that, it is said. But now tell me what that does to Paula Jones or potentially could do to Paula Jones, or to one of you or to one of your spouses or to one of -- a member of your community who wants to have justice done in the courts.

Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice, to an individual or to a family. We can take from Paula Jones and telescope it upwards to every community and every courthouse and every state and every community in our land, and there is a Paula Jones eager to assert certain rights, and then be confronted with someone who would tear it down by false testimony, by lies under oath. That is what the gravamen of all of this really is.

One more thing: The counsel for the President have -- repeatedly and very authoritatively and professionally -- have asserted, as many of you have, that this is not an impeachable offense. ''For after all,'' they say, ''an impeachable offense -- an impeachable offense -- is one in which there is a direct attack on the system of government, not perjury, not obstruction of justice.''

'' 'So what' on those,'' they imply. They say, ''It does not'' -- perjury, especially about sex -- ''attack the system of government.''

'She Was So Proud'

I must tell you that as an 8- or 9- or 10-year-old, I would accompany my mother to naturalization school three or four nights a week, where my mother was intent on learning the English language and learning about the history of the United States, as the teachers for naturalization were preparing these prospective citizens.

And she was so proud that she learned that the first President of the United States was George Washington, was prepared to answer that question if it was posed to her at naturalization court. And she was so proud, when I was testing her and preparing her, each time I'd say, ''Mom, what are the three branches of government?'' And she would say, ''The Exec and the Legisla and the Judish,'' in her wonderful, lovable accent.

She knew the system of government. And she did have to answer that at naturalization court. And she knew that the one wall of the three that protect our rights is the Judish. She knew that the courthouse and the rights of citizens which are advanced in that courthouse is -- are -- the system of government. Can anyone say that purposely attempting to destroy someone's case in the courthouse is not an attack on the system of government of our country?